←back to thread

NASA chief suggests SpaceX may be booted from moon mission

(www.cnn.com)
404 points voxleone | 7 comments | 21 Oct 25 12:58 UTC | HN request time: 0.019s | source | bottom
Show context
allenrb ◴[21 Oct 25 20:38 UTC] No.45661384[source]▶
There is just so much wrong with this from start to finish. Here are a few things, by no means inclusive:

1. We’ve already beaten China to the moon by 56 years, 3 months, and some change. And counting.

2. Nothing based around SLS is remotely serious. The cost and timeline of doing anything with it are unreasonable. It is an absolute dead-end. The SpaceX Super Heavy has been more capable arguably as early as the second flight test and certainly now. They could have built a “dumb” second stage at any time, but aren’t that short-sighted.

3. Blue Origin? I’ve had high hopes for the guys for two decades now. Don’t hold your breath.

4. Anyone else? Really, really don’t hold your breath.

This whole “race to the moon, part II” is almost criminally stupid. Land on the moon when we can accomplish something there, not just to prove we haven’t lost our mojo since Apollo.

replies(37): >>45661569 #>>45661650 #>>45661812 #>>45661864 #>>45662019 #>>45662078 #>>45662268 #>>45662530 #>>45662636 #>>45662805 #>>45662869 #>>45663083 #>>45663232 #>>45663254 #>>45664108 #>>45664333 #>>45664434 #>>45664870 #>>45665102 #>>45665180 #>>45665389 #>>45665607 #>>45665948 #>>45666137 #>>45666225 #>>45666739 #>>45667016 #>>45667353 #>>45667484 #>>45667622 #>>45668139 #>>45668273 #>>45671330 #>>45671920 #>>45674500 #>>45674624 #>>45680644 #
Waterluvian ◴[21 Oct 25 21:41 UTC] No.45662078[source]▶
Re: 1. I think the America of Theseus mindset is a bit troubling. A lot of people like to identify with achievements that they played no role in. Based on zero expertise whatsoever, I have a sense that this is a bit self defeating. To be born a winner, to be taught you’re a winner… how can that be healthy?

Today’s America scores zero points for its accomplishments of the past. But I think one way it can be a good thing is the, “we’ve done it before, we can do it again” attitude. Which is somewhat opposite to “we already won!”

replies(11): >>45662345 #>>45662614 #>>45662879 #>>45663082 #>>45663420 #>>45663980 #>>45665687 #>>45666641 #>>45667851 #>>45668570 #>>45670573 #
zdragnar ◴[21 Oct 25 22:36 UTC] No.45662614[source]▶
America cannot possibly win the space race again, because it has already been won. The first to get there has already happened.

The idea that we need to land on the moon once a generation just to say that we are as good at landing on the moon as our parents is absurd.

replies(15): >>45662767 #>>45663475 #>>45663477 #>>45663543 #>>45663640 #>>45663668 #>>45663850 #>>45663882 #>>45663981 #>>45664259 #>>45664826 #>>45665284 #>>45666104 #>>45666433 #>>45667087 #
Waterluvian ◴[21 Oct 25 22:54 UTC] No.45662767[source]▶
It’s just as absurd today as it was in the 60s. It’s an artificial challenge that focuses attention, with the goal of exercising government, industries, academics, etc. and maybe learn and invent a few things along the way. Yes, yes, Cold War and all those theories. But it had and can again have this greater effect.

It’s kind of like a FIRST Robotics Challenge for nations. The specific goal really doesn’t matter and can just as well be different than the moon. That’s not the interesting part.

replies(3): >>45662862 #>>45663018 #>>45663095 #
fluoridation ◴[21 Oct 25 23:18 UTC] No.45663018{3}[source]▶
>It’s just as absurd today as it was in the 60s.

Nah. You can argue that the goal "land on the moon" is artificial, but it being artificial doesn't make it fake or abstract. If you're the first to achieve it then you're the first, and that's it. What does it prove if you're able to repeat it fifty years later? You didn't have to invent anything new (obviously), and you're certainly not learning anything new.

Now, if you're not able to repeat it at all, that does say something. But if it takes you a few years longer, well, so what? It's not a race anymore, because it's already been won, by the US of fifty years ago.

The winner of the race to Mars is still undecided, though.

replies(3): >>45663084 #>>45663491 #>>45663919 #
1. Dylan16807 ◴[22 Oct 25 00:17 UTC] No.45663491{4}[source]▶
> What does it prove if you're able to repeat it fifty years later? You didn't have to invent anything new (obviously), and you're certainly not learning anything new.

Despite you throwing the word "obviously" at it, that is an extremely untrue claim. Even if we hadn't forgotten a lot of the details, we're solving new engineering challenges with modern material science and manufacturing, and learning a lot of new things about spacecraft design. There is a ton of invention in doing another landing after so long.

replies(2): >>45663721 #>>45664093 #
2. fluoridation ◴[22 Oct 25 00:51 UTC] No.45663721[source]▶
What I said was that you didn't have to invent anything new. And yeah, that is obvious. If you've already figured out how to build a Saturn V, to build a second one you just do the same steps you did for the first one. You don't have to use new techniques just because new ones exist.
replies(2): >>45663768 #>>45665566 #
3. Dylan16807 ◴[22 Oct 25 00:58 UTC] No.45663768[source]▶
We have lost a bunch of old techniques.

But even as stated, I don't think your argument holds up. "What does it prove if you're able to repeat it fifty years later? You didn't have to invent anything new (obviously), and you're certainly not learning anything new."

Even if it was technically possible to not invent anything new, that path is not going to be taken. It would be even more expensive and worse in every way. Nobody is going to launch a rocket with just 60s/70s technology ever again. A new moon launch will have lots of invention and learning, and claiming we can still do it does need proof.

replies(1): >>45663866 #
4. fluoridation ◴[22 Oct 25 01:14 UTC] No.45663866{3}[source]▶
>We have lost a bunch of old techniques.

Like I said, you didn't have to invent anything new. In this case you put yourself in the awkward situation of having to reinvent the wheel by your own incompetence. So if you actually do do it, what have you proven?

>It would be even more expensive and worse in every way.

Worse and more expensive than what? The only rocket that has flown men to the moon is Saturn V. What exactly are you comparing it to?

replies(1): >>45663970 #
5. Dylan16807 ◴[22 Oct 25 01:31 UTC] No.45663970{4}[source]▶
Let me make this point very clear with no distractions:

The "you're certainly not learning anything new" argument only works if we do reuse old techniques. "You don't have to invent anything new" is not sufficient to support the argument.

> Worse and more expensive than what?

Trying to reinvent old techniques and rebuild a bunch of machines and factories that used those techniques would be worse than inventing new things. You'd have to deliberately choose to not learn anything and to waste extra money in pursuit of that choice.

> The only rocket that has flown men to the moon is Saturn V. What exactly are you comparing it to?

We don't have a time machine, so the contenders are "2020s rocket with techniques invented before 1970" or "2020s rocket with techniques invented before 2030".

> So if you actually do do it, what have you proven?

If you actually do it, in a reasonable way, then in addition to the inventions and learning and any proof to do with that, you prove you can go to the moon, because saying "oh of course we can, we could use the old method" is not a particularly strong claim as industries change and workers retire over the course of more than half a century.

6. ◴[22 Oct 25 01:54 UTC] No.45664093[source]▶
7. mrheosuper ◴[22 Oct 25 06:34 UTC] No.45665566[source]▶
>to build a second one you just do the same steps you did for the first one.

Are you in manufacturing? Because when following perfectly mature process, defect still happens.

Then, how do you even "do the same steps for the first one"? After 50y, lots have lost.